Troy Loney wrote:Well, he's also pretty anti muslim. would that explain it at all?

The major players in these conflicts are all Muslim so I think it's more of the instability these revolutions are causing? Maybe he would have been with King George at one time? People have the right to govern themselves how they see fit.

U.N. inspectors have collected a "wealth" of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.

I think when reviewing the ballyhooed Arab Spring a strong case could be made that the cures were worse then the diseases that were replaced. Morsi made more poitical arrests in one year then Mubararak had in 30 years. The Muslim brohood was having a field day murdering Coptics was bent on installing Sharia law. Khadafi was a secular dictator who had been keeping a low profile. The new Libyan leadership managed to kill our ambassador as thanks for helping them and is protecting the terrorists responsible according to this administration's officials.I think it's quite possible that the Syrian opposition is as bad or worse then Assad. They,ve committed atrocities and have massacred Allowite and Christian minorities in villages they gained control over. A spokeswomen named O'Bagy was quoted by McCain and Kerry in determining the "moderate" makeup of the opposition. It was discovered she was secretly employed by the FSA and had falsified credentials to a think tank that employed her. She was fired for claiming a doctor's degree from Georgetown and her analysis of the opposition is dubious at best. I don't know that there are many good guys in the Syrian conflict. Any "majority" will involved isn't very important. The majority will in Iran is for Islamic facism. The "moderate" Pakastani government has a Christian woman improsened on a death sentence for allegedly drinking water from a Muslim well. The less involvement we have in these sh*thole countries,the better off we are.

pittsoccer33 wrote:a lot of our plan options were axed because they were considered "cadillac" plans and subject to punitive taxes.

im just kind of reading that for a healthy single guy its better to buy your own in a lot of cases than buy the standard group plan thru an employer - no girl doctor yearly exams need to be factored into the cost of coverage. you can sometimes tailor this stuff.

I have coverage from my full time employer with the only change being made is higher deducibles and less coverage every year. I also do some project work for the place I retired from through the Ryan temp agency. I got a letter from Ryan saying anyone working for them would be limited to 1500 hindred hours per year (getting under the 30 hours per week) which was obviously to avoid Obamacare. It doesn't matter to me since it was a second job with 5 or 6 days a month max. Ryan is a nation wide temp agency which makes me feel sorry for those who relied on the place for full time work.This is why 70% of the jobs created this year were part time.

He's consistently sided with the dictators in these "Arab Spring" countries in this thread and been against the will of the majority.

Is this a joke? Also, which majority are you talking about? The majority of peace-loving Syrians (and there are plenty of those for sure), or the majority of violent radicals that have traveled to Syria to try and foment increased instability, violence, and bloodshed in order to prop up a nice little base of operations when we've cleaned things out for them?

I've stated multiple times that Assad is a total monster. Why are you so loathe to admit that these rebels are hardly peace-loving freedom fighters? Do you know what's going to happen when Assad is deposed? Syria is going to become a hotbed of radicalism, theological violence, etc. It's already started, with Christian and other villages being sacked, beheaded, forced to convert, etc. When your choice is between a dictator or a bunch of bloodthirsty radicals, (read: al-Qaeda), what kind of choice is that?

Ask Egyptians how wonderful the Arab Spring has turned out for them. I'm going to brush aside TL's comment, but why has the Arab Spring been continuously praised as this incredible thing to happen to the M.E.? There has been some good (like in Tunisia), but the byproduct for the most part has been increased violence, a vacuum of power, and brutal, religious suppression. Remember back in Egypt, when female journalists were getting gang-raped in Tahrir Square merely for reporting on the "peaceful" protests? These are the people that end up controlling the country when you remove authoritarian governments.

Why are you so PRO-involvement and PRO-arming the rebels, I should ask? Do you honestly think that sending arms to Syrian rebels is a good idea? I'm curious to hear your case for it, because I haven't heard much of an argument yet, besides "ASSAD BAD". We all know that Assad is terrible, but why exactly should we be complicit in removing him from power? There are a whole lot more angles involved in this situation than merely "giving Syrians their freedom", and I'm wondering why you seem to be purposely ignoring that.

Troy Loney wrote:Well, he's also pretty anti muslim. would that explain it at all?

The major players in these conflicts are all Muslim so I think it's more of the instability these revolutions are causing? Maybe he would have been with King George at one time? People have the right to govern themselves how they see fit.

lololololol

You are either doing some Grade C trolling or being purposely obtuse. Honest to God, if you are comparing the American Revolution to the Arab Spring, I don't know what to tell you.

Were you in favor of the invasion of Iraq? "People have the right to govern themselves how they see fit." I'm sure the majority of Iraqis hated Hussein, so that was probably a good thing, right? What about North Korea? The Korean government perpetrates horrific crimes far worse than any other country in the world. I think we need to bomb them, or try and arm the populace. We both know they all hate Kim Jong Un.

He's consistently sided with the dictators in these "Arab Spring" countries in this thread and been against the will of the majority.

You're loopy if you think preferring non-intervention is "siding with the dictators".

Geezer wrote:I think when reviewing the ballyhooed Arab Spring a strong case could be made that the cures were worse then the diseases that were replaced. Morsi made more poitical arrests in one year then Mubararak had in 30 years.

While I have no interest in defending Hosni Mubarak (clarifying so that I don't incur Factorial's wrath and be accused of supporting dictators), this raises two points:

1) What is the source for that claim? Frankly, I have a hard time believing it no matter how much of a turd Morsi was while in office.

2) In 5,000 years of Egyptian history, Morsi was the first democratically elected political leader. That has to mean something, again, no matter how much of a scum he was. We can't be pro-democracy*. We're either pro-democracy (regardless of outcomes) or we're hypocrites.

I’m certainly not pro-democracy, our founders were not pro-democracy, and we thankfully don’t have a democracy. Pure and unfettered democracy isn’t much better than mob rule, and democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good and is not a synonym for justice or liberty. As noted by British social commenter Theodore Dalrymple, “The first thing to remember is that freedom and democracy are not necessarily the same thing at all. A people may easily vote into power a government that wishes to massacre part of the population.”

Democracy becomes a good when the will of the majority is subordinated to the recognition that individual and minorities have certain inalienable rights that no vote of the majority—no matter how large—can take away. The largely Muslim Brotherhood-written constitution that was enacted in Egypt under Morsi did not pass that test. Neither did his government, which largely turned a blind eye to acts of violence and arson committed against Egypt’s Christian Copts.

I finally just read this Putin op-ed from start to finish. Obviously he disagrees on the origin of the nerve gas weaponry, and Russia's own civil rights issues are a bit of a concern, but I thought it was a surprisingly well-crafted and reasoned article.